This action arises from an auto accident that occurred on October 30, 2012, in which plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries. (Doc. #7). Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought coverage under the underinsured/uninsured motorist ("UM/UIM") provision of her insurance policy with State Farm. (Doc. #7).

On April 29, 2014, plaintiff initiated this action in the Nevada state court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, unfair claims practice, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Doc. #7-1). State Farm removed the case to this court on July 2, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and § 1441. (Doc. #1). In the instant motion, plaintiff seeks remand, arguing that the amount in controversy requirement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) has not been met. (Doc. #7).

II. Legal Standard

A complaint filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action had it been brought in federal court in the first place. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). This court has original jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), over suits between citizens of different states for which the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.

Plaintiff is a resident of Clark County, Nevada and State Farm is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in that state. (Doc. #1). The parties agree that the diversity of citizenship requirement is met. ( See docs. #10 at 3, #7 at 3). However, plaintiff disputes that the amount in controversy criterion has been satisfied. (Doc. #7 at 3).

In response, State Farm argues that the record clearly establishes that the amount in controversy exceeds the requisite threshold. (Doc. #10 at 6). State Farm asserts that plaintiff incurred over $18, 000 in past medical specials and received a surgical recommendation for her injuries, which "on average" costs $22, 300 in Las Vegas. (Doc. #10 at 3-4). State Farm further contends that plaintiff's complaint seeks consequential and punitive damages in excess of $30, 000. (Doc. #10 at 4).

Upon review of the complaint and State Farm's statement in support of removal, it does not appear that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The court finds that State Farm has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this case exceeds the $75, 000 threshold. In fact, according to the values put forth by State Farm, the sum of plaintiff's medical specialty, future surgery expenses, and consequential/punitive damages equals $70, 300.

Therefore, the court finds that the amount in controversy requirement has not been satisfied and plaintiff's ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.